SHER AHMED vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1717 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SHER AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b), 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---accused-appellant were charged for committing murder of the minor son of complainant after kidnapping him for extorting money---Testimonies of the complainant and his brother were not consistent in so far as material facts were concerned---Complainant's brother had deposed that one of the appellants had remained associated with them during the search for the child---according to the testimony of said witness, appellant was suspected because of his inquiries regarding delay in the payment of ransom---Said witness had deposed that on 05.07.2012 both the appellants and the other acquitted accused had come to a grassy ground---In his examination-in-chief said witness had stated that appellant was arrested from the grassy ground but later, in his cross-examination, he had contradicted his own statement by deposing that his arrest was made while he was proceeding towards the complainant's house---Deposition of complainant's brother did not find support from the testimonies of other witnesses, particularly that of the complainant---Latter, in his deposition, did not refer to the communication between appellant and complainant's brother nor the presence of the appellants and the acquitted accused at the grassy ground---Testimony of Inspector further weakened the prosecution's story because, according to his deposition, appellant was one of the suspects during the inquiry conducted under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and that he was interrogated prior to the recovery of the body and registration of the crime report---Testimony of Inquiry Officer further raised doubts since he had contradicted the facts narrated by complainant's brother in material particulars---according to the testimony of Inquiry Officer, the appellant and the acquitted accused were arrested on 06.07.2012---There was no explanation as to why the three accused were not arrested when, according to the testimony of complainant's brother, they come together to the grassy ground to collect the ransom amount---There was no evidence to prove that ransom was demanded or that the child victim was abducted by the appellants---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed in its obligation to prove the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

SHER AHMED vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1717 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR